Next Article in Journal
Pilot Study of Attitudes of Taiwanese Veterinarians and Undergraduate Veterinary Students toward Animal Abuse and Interpersonal Violence
Previous Article in Journal
Immune Parameters in Chickens Treated with Antibiotics and Probiotics during Early Life
Previous Article in Special Issue
Long-Term and Carryover Effects of Supplementation with Whole Oilseeds on Methane Emission, Milk Production and Milk Fatty Acid Profile of Grazing Dairy Cows
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 12
Issue 9
10.3390/ani12091132
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Feeding Strategies to Mitigate Enteric Methane Emission from Ruminants in Grassland Systems

by
Juan Vargas
1,
Emilio Ungerfeld
2,
Camila Muñoz
3 and
Nicolas DiLorenzo
1,*
1
Department of Animal Sciences, North Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Marianna, FL 32443, USA
2
Centro Regional de Investigación Carillanca, Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, Temuco 4880000, Chile
3
Centro Regional de Investigación Remehue, Instituto de Investigaciones Agropecuarias, Osorno 5290000, Chile
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2022, 12(9), 1132; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12091132
Submission received: 18 March 2022 / Revised: 13 April 2022 / Accepted: 15 April 2022 / Published: 28 April 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Grazing Livestock Systems: Measuring and Mitigating Enteric Methane Emissions)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Ruminants under grazing conditions play an important role, especially in developing countries. Enteric methane emissions from ruminants are greater with pasture-based diets; however, it is not clear which abatement practices are effective to reduce methane emissions under grazing conditions. The objective of this review was to identify and describe enteric methane abatement practices for ruminants that are applicable under grazing conditions. Decreasing the pre-grazing herbage mass reduced methane emissions per unit of product. Other grazing management practices such as increased stocking rate, decreased forage maturity, rotational stocking, and incorporating tannin-containing or non-tannin-containing legumes showed inconsistent results. Nitrogen fertilization or silvopastoral systems did not modify methane emissions, although they may alter carbon sequestration in a system. Supplementation in grazing conditions shows inconsistent responses on methane emissions. However, lipid supplementation showed promising results. Identifying and implementing grazing strategies and supplementation practices under grazing conditions is required to increase efficiency and reduce the environmental impact of these systems.

Abstract

Ruminants produce approximately 30% of total anthropogenic methane emissions globally. The objective of this manuscript was to review nutritional enteric methane abatement practices for ruminants that are applicable under grazing conditions. A total of 1548 peer-reviewed research articles related to the abatement of enteric methane emissions were retrieved and classified into four categories: non-experimental, in vitro, in vivo confined, and in vivo grazing. The methane abatement strategies for grazing systems were arranged into grazing management and supplementation practices. Only 9% of the retrieved papers have been conducted under grazing conditions. Eight grazing management practices have been evaluated to reduce methane emissions. Decreasing the pre-grazing herbage mass reduced the methane emission per unit of product. Other grazing management practices such as increased stocking rate, decreased forage maturity, rotational stocking, and incorporating tannin-containing or non-tannin-containing feeds showed contradictory results. Nitrogen fertilization or silvopastoral systems did not modify methane emissions. Conversely, supplementation practices in grazing conditions showed contradictory responses on methane emissions. Lipid supplementation showed promising results and suggests applicability under grazing conditions. Identifying and implementing grazing strategies and supplementation practices under grazing conditions is required to increase efficiency and reduce the environmental impact of these systems.

1. Introduction

Ruminants are an essential component of grassland ecosystems. They maintain the dynamic cycle of nutrients through grazing and nutrient excretion [1]. Additionally, they convert non-edible feeds into high-quality food for human nutrition [2], promote human food security, especially in developing communities, and play an essential role in cultural and social relationships in many societies [3]. Grasslands support 360 million cattle and more than 600 million sheep and goats worldwide [4]. However, ruminant production in grassland ecosystems has been associated with deforestation, biodiversity loss, and water and air contamination [5,6].
Globally, livestock produce 14.5% of total anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), with enteric methane (CH4) being the primary source (39.1% [7]). Further, it has been proposed that 47% of CH4 emissions are the result of ruminants under grazing conditions [8], associated with poor animal performance [9]. For this reason, these systems produce more CH4 per unit of product than mixed or confined production systems [10,11]. Regardless of the production system, CH4 emissions represent an energy loss for ruminants, varying between 2 and 12% of gross energy intake [12].
Enteric CH4 can be expressed in different forms: as an absolute amount emitted per day (i.e., total CH4 production), relative to the unit of dry or organic matter consumed (i.e., CH4 yield), or by product produced such as meat or milk (i.e., CH4 intensity), either as a percentage of the gross energy ingested (i.e., CH4 conversion factor, Ym) or relative to the unit of grazed area.
Strategies for decreasing CH4 emissions from ruminant livestock can be grouped into animal management, genetic selection, rumen microbiome manipulation, and nutritional modulation [11,13,14]. Practices that promote more efficient systems due to better animal performance or fewer inputs reduce CH4 intensity [2,10,15]. In the past decades, various strategies have been evaluated both under in vitro and in vivo conditions. In vitro techniques are convenient for evaluating many samples and understanding the chemical and biological mechanisms involved in CH4 production [16]. In vivo methodologies allow a more holistic approach and can take place in confined or grazing conditions. Confined methods allow better control of experimental procedures, particularly feed intake, and often provide more precise results [17]. However, research under confined conditions has limitations when extrapolated to grazing conditions because it does not convey all the complexity and dynamic interactions that occur between soil, forage, animal, herd, and climate [18]. In addition, confined experimental conditions to measure enteric methane (e.g., chambers) could decrease dry matter intake by ruminants, potentially affecting the CH4 emission determination [19,20].
Animal response in grazing systems is affected by environmental, management, social, and individual factors that differ from confined systems [21]. Environmental conditions such as heat can modify ruminant grazing patterns [22,23]. Further, grazing management modulates animal forage selection and nutrient recycling, ultimately impacting herbage mass accumulation and forage nutritive value [1]. Additionally, herd interaction alters consumption behavior associated with animal hierarchy, and ruminants show an individual grazing behavior associated with previous experience or modulated through epigenetic stimuli [21]. Because intake is the main driver of CH4 production [12,17], the differences between grazing and confinement may be partially explained by variations in dry matter intake. However, the type of ruminal fermentation in both systems (i.e., proportion of propionate relative to other VFA) may have a greater impact on the differences in methanogenesis, assuming the predominance of cereal-based diets in confinement.
Determining enteric CH4 emissions in grasslands poses significant challenges as few in vivo techniques are available that can accurately measure daily CH4 emissions under grazing conditions [18,24]. Constraints in measuring variables related to CH4 emissions (e.g., dry matter intake) and handling ruminants with a specific frequency, especially in extensive systems, limit animal interventions such as the use of feed additives or supplementation [14,25,26]. This manuscript aims to critically review nutritional abatement strategies of enteric CH4 from ruminants in grassland systems reported in the scientific literature.

2. Research on Methane Emission Abatement Strategies

Peer-reviewed publications were obtained from ScienceDirect (https://www.sciencedirect.com/ accessed on 11 October 2021), Springer (https://www.springer.com/us accessed on 18 October 2021), and Scielo (https://www.scielo.org/ accessed on 5 October 2021), using the following keywords: “methane”, “methane emissions”, “methane production”, and “ruminant”. A total of 1548 documents from 1956 to 2020 were retrieved and classified into four categories as follows:
i.
Non-experimental: Represented by documents that did not involve original research data collection, for example, reviews, meta-analyses, life cycle assessments, inventory estimations, or methodology description.
ii.
In vitro: This category comprised research that evaluated CH4 emissions in batch or semi-continuous in vitro cultures.
iii.
Confined studies: Represented by documents that evaluated in vivo CH4 emissions, where ruminants were restricted to confined facilities.
iv.
Grazing studies: This category includes research that determined in vivo CH4 emissions under grazing conditions.
Retrieved documents were categorized according to the continent where the experiments were conducted (i.e., the Americas, Africa, Asia, Europe, or Oceania), production system (i.e., beef, dairy, or small ruminants), type of forage (i.e., temperate or tropical forage), and CH4 measurement technique.
Research evaluating CH4 emissions from ruminants published in the last decade increased by 6 and 28-fold relative to the decades 2001–2010 and 1990–2000, respectively (Figure 1). Thus, there has been an increase in interest in measuring and evaluating strategies to reduce CH4 emissions from ruminants in the last decade. Beauchemin et al. [25] reported similar tendencies, emphasizing that early CH4 research focused more on increasing animal energy efficiency, understanding methanogenesis biochemical pathways, and evaluating rumen modifiers under in vitro or confined conditions. After the development of the sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) tracer technique [12], and more recently, the use of the GreenFeed (GF, C-Lock Inc., Rapid City, SD) technology [27], more experiments have been conducted under grazing conditions [25].
Publications involving reviews, meta-analyses, methodology description, and theoretical analyses (i.e., non-experimental category) represented 23% of the retrieved documents. In vitro publications were 31% of the documents, with the batch culture methodology being predominant (reported in 83% of the in vitro studies). The in vivo Confined category represented 39% of the documents, and respiration chambers, SF6, and GF techniques used in confinement studies were 57, 20, and 7% of the documents, respectively. Further, 16% of the confined studies provided cut and carry forage as a proxy for grazing conditions.
The in vivo Grazing category represented 7% of the documents (Figure 2), and the SF6 technique was used in 70% of the grazing research on CH4 abatement. Research on enteric CH4 emissions under grazing conditions has been carried out mainly in Europe and the Americas (67%), evaluating mostly cattle (83%) under temperate pastures (76%) (Figure 3).

3. Methane Emissions in Grassland Systems

Grassland systems vary from extensive, generally with low productivity per area, low forage nutritive value, non-improved ruminant breeds, and without supplementation schemes, to intensive, generally with high productivity, improved animal breeds, grasses, and management, and more balanced diets [7,26]. This diversity in production systems requires the development of different approaches to reduce enteric CH4 emissions that will have a minimal effect on farm labor activities, production costs, and profitability. For example, continuous inclusion of a feed additive may be easily incorporated in intensive grazing systems through supplemental feed (e.g., during the milking routine). However, in extensive grazing conditions, daily additive supplementation is less feasible, and other strategies must be developed to ensure continuous CH4 abatement.
From a feed and nutritional perspective, strategies to decrease CH4 emissions can be classified into practices related to grazing management or strategic supplementation of ingredients or additives. Managing grazing intensity—targeted through contrasting stocking rates or pre-grazing herbage masses—and concentrate supplementation have been the most reported strategies to modulate CH4 under grazing conditions (12 and 9 studies, respectively). This was followed by lipid (6 studies) and nitrate supplementation (3 studies). Other strategies that modify forage nutritive value (i.e., incorporation of tannin-containing legumes or manipulation of forage maturity) have been less evaluated (2 studies each).

3.1. Grazing Management Strategies to Mitigate Methane Emissions from Ruminants

Grazing management consists of practices that manipulate forage characteristics to pursue one or multiple objectives. Grazing intensity, phenological stage of grasses, and grazing method are management tools that manipulate forage availability or quality [28]. Grazing intensity, generally expressed as stocking rate, or relationship between the number of animals and amount of land grazed, is the main factor affecting nutrient cycling, and defines animal productivity while delivering ecosystem services [28,29]. Under grazing conditions, increasing the stocking rate showed inconsistent results on CH4 emissions (Table 1). However, methane intensity was not affected by increasing the stocking rate (Table 1).
Increasing the stocking rate decreases forage biomass, but increases forage nutritive value [59], as greater stocking rates are associated with extensive biomass defoliation, maintaining the vegetative stage of forages [28]. Consumption of forage material in a vegetative stage is associated with reduced CH4 yield due to a lesser concentration of cell wall structure [43]. Additionally, intake of forages in a vegetative stage increases dry matter consumption, decreases ruminal retention time, and reduces CH4 yield (i.e., grams of CH4 per unit of dry matter intake), although it could increase total CH4 production (i.e., total grams of CH4 per animal per day [60]). Conversely, individual animal productivity decreases when the stocking rate increases due to greater grazing competition and less possibility for animal forage selection [61]. The intensity or yield of enteric CH4 emissions may be increased with high stocking rates if forage availability is restricted and is insufficient to meet the animal’s nutrient requirements.
The phenological stage of grazing is related to the physiological stage of forage, i.e., forage maturity, when the defoliation occurs [28]. Reduced forage maturity decreased the CH4 conversion factor (i.e., Ym; Table 1). Mature forages have a lesser concentration of digestible tissues such as parenchyma and more cell wall structure. This structure is mainly composed of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin and has slow rumen fermentation and passage rates [62]. The fermentation of cell wall carbohydrates yields more CH4 than non-structural carbohydrates [63]. Conversely, immature forages have more degradable nutrients and result in increased dry matter intake [42]. Thus, it is expected that mature forages in ruminant diets produce a greater CH4 yield due to greater cell wall concentration. However, if the forage cell wall structure limits intake (i.e., physical restriction), the CH4 production may be reduced, increasing CH4 yield [60].
The grazing method refers to how animals are stocked and is generally classified as continuous or rotational [64]. Usually, rotational grazing is associated with more uniformly distributed grazing and manure deposition, increasing the carrying capacity and efficiency of grazing, maintaining forage uniformity, conserving nutrient soil characteristics, and increasing productivity per unit of area [28,65]. In contrast, continuous grazing promotes greater herbage selection and intake if animals have a similar herbage allowance [31]. In our review, the grazing method did not show consistent results on CH4 emissions (Table 1). In one experiment, increased CH4 intensity was associated with decreased animal production in rotational vs. continuous stocking, related to lower intake [31]. Under well-managed grazing conditions, no differences were observed in continuous or rotational grazing in herbage accumulation, forage nutritive value, intake, or performance because the animal can select and consume forages of greater nutritional value [64]. The limited number of studies comparing continuous and rotational grazing limits the evaluation of the effects of rotational or continuous methods on CH4 emissions. Additionally, to our knowledge, no studies have evaluated other grazing methods such as first-last grazers [64] on CH4 emissions.
Another strategy to increase herbage mass is applying nitrogen fertilization [54,66], allowing a greater stocking rate and extending the grazing period [59]. Nitrogen fertilization did not modify enteric CH4 production except with nitrogen application rates greater than 400 kg/ha [45]. However, nitrogen application did not modify forage biomass or nutritive value, explaining the absence of effects on CH4 yield or intensity (Table 1). No experiments have evaluated the effects of fertilization with other nutrients on CH4 production.
Legume inclusion in pastures has important advantages for grassland systems. Legumes can fix atmospheric nitrogen through the symbiotic relationship with Rhizobium bacteria and increase crude protein concentration in forage diets [67]. Legumes are C3 species and have more digestible tissue (i.e., mesophyll), greater crude protein concentration, and greater microbial degradation than C4 grasses [62,68]. Several studies have been conducted to evaluate the effects of legumes on CH4 production. There are differences in ruminant CH4 emissions when the legume evaluated contains condensed tannins. Generally, non-tanninferous legumes such as Medicago sativa or Trifolium spp. Have a greater extent of ruminal organic matter digestion, especially in low-quality grass-based diets [50]. Their inclusion in ruminants’ diets increase dry matter intake and animal performance [48,52,53,69]. However, in most retrieved manuscripts, non-tanninferous legumes did not modify CH4 production, yield, or intensity (Table 1). Factors such as legume proportion in pasture, dry matter intake, organic matter digestibility, and passage rate can help explain the absence of any effects on CH4 emissions. For example, McCaughey et al. [52] reported that 78% of alfalfa in the pasture increased dry matter intake by 13% and decreased CH4 production by 10%. In contrast, Chaves et al. [49] reported that 40% of alfalfa in the pasture did not affect intake or CH4 production.
Tannin-containing legumes such as Lotus spp. or Calliandra calothyrsus contain polyphenol compounds that protect plants against external stressors. Variations in tannin type, concentration, and activity depend on environmental conditions and management practices [70]. Waghorn [71] suggested that tannins reduce ruminal protein and carbohydrate fermentation and microbial enzyme activity and affect methanogenic archaea populations [70,72]. Thus, CH4 emissions may be reduced due to decreased nutrient fermentation, diminished dihydrogen (H2) production, or a modified archaeal community. However, high tannin concentration is associated with detrimental effects on animal performance, related to decreased dry matter intake and protein digestibility [71]. There is too little information to conclude on the effect of the inclusion of tannin-containing legumes as a strategy to modify CH4 emissions (Table 1).
Silvopastoral systems are a spatial arrangement where multiple forage strata grow together to provide forage biomass and other ecosystem services [73]. There are multiple silvopastoral designs where woody species may or may not provide forage for ruminant diets [74]. Silvopastoral systems decrease the nutritive value of grass and biomass production because trees can intercept light, increase cell wall concentration, and reduce herbage photosynthetic ability [75]. However, in warm or dry conditions, the presence of trees produces a micro-environment that maintains forage production, reduces maturity, and increases nutritive value [73]. There are few evaluations of silvopastoral systems on enteric CH4 emissions. Ruminants in silvopastoral systems produced similar CH4 emissions to ruminants in grasslands without trees due to similar forage nutritive value and animal intake (Table 1). The foliage of some shrubs and trees has secondary compounds, such as tannins or saponins, that have been reported to decrease CH4 emissions from ruminants; however, this has not been evaluated under grazing conditions [76].

3.2. Supplementation Strategies to Mitigate Methane Emissions from Ruminants in Grasslands Systems

Diet supplementation is a nutritional strategy to supply deficient nutrients, improve the health status, increase animal performance, and reduce GHG emission intensity, especially in undernourished ruminants [77]. Concentrate supplementation at pasture showed contradictory results on CH4 emissions (Table 2). It is expected that concentrate supplementation increases rumen fermentation of forage diets, resulting in greater absolute production of H2 and CH4 in the rumen [78]. Thus, concentrate supplementation may increase the total CH4 production (i.e., total grams of CH4 per animal per day). Conversely, concentrate supplementation increases ruminal passage and reduces the rumen pH, resulting in lower CH4 relative to organic matter fermented because the hydrogen is redirected to other metabolic pathways (i.e., propionate or microbial bacteria synthesis; [79,80]. In addition, methanogens are sensitive to ruminal pH lower than 6 [81]. Thus, concentrate supplementation might decrease CH4 yield (i.e., total grams of CH4 per unit of OM fermented). Finally, concentrate supplementation increases dry matter intake and animal performance resulting in lower CH4 intensity (i.e., total grams of CH4 per unit of product), and effects appear to be dependent on the level of concentrate supplied.
Lipid supplementation is another strategy to increase the energetic density of ruminant diets, especially during high-energy demand periods such as early lactation [97], which has shown promise as a CH4 mitigation strategy [98]. Lipid supplementation under grazing conditions decreased CH4 intensity 60% (Table 2). Lipid inclusion may reduce fiber digestion, by coating the fiber against microbial fermentation [14,99]. Fiber fermentation is related to acetate and H2 production in the rumen. In this regard, reducing dry matter intake and fiber degradability potentially decreases H2 and CH4 production, though it is not a desirable mechanism to reduce CH4 emissions [78]. Furthermore, fatty acids can inhibit methanogens. Poly-unsaturated and medium chain fatty acids have toxic and disruptive effects on methanogen cell membranes [98,100]. In addition, unsaturated fatty acids capture H2 during the rumen biohydrogenation process, although this represents a small proportion of H2 capture [12]. Finally, nitrates are reduced in the rumen to ammonia, competing with methanogenesis [9]. However, nitrates did not reduce CH4 emissions of ruminants under grazing conditions (Table 2).

4. Perspectives on Methane Mitigation Strategies in Grasslands Systems

Designing effective mitigation strategies of CH4 emissions under grazing conditions represents a significant challenge, especially in extensive systems. These challenges are reflected in the fact that considerably less research has been conducted under grazing conditions, in which there is less control of the experimental conditions compared to confined systems. In addition, the heterogeneity and seasonal variation in grazing lands’ forage composition and growth further complicate conditions in these systems by adding experimental variation. The most widespread technique for measuring CH4 under grazing conditions is the SF6 tracer technique, which is less precise and more labor intensive than respiration chambers [17,18]. The inability to accurately determine intake in grazing conditions hinders the ability of researchers in terms of assessing CH4 emissions yield and the impact of interventions on forage intake. Thus, results of CH4 abatement strategies evaluated in grazing systems are less consistent than in confined studies, and researchers may need to rely on the impact on emissions intensity rather than yield when assessing these strategies. Animal performance (i.e., milk yield or growth) is frequently and more precisely evaluated during grazing experiments. Therefore, CH4 intensity should be a more useful variable to compare practices in grazing conditions.
This review highlights CH4 mitigation practices that have been studied under grazing conditions. Emission of CH4 may be reduced through grazing practices that modify the forage composition (i.e., reducing structural carbohydrate intakes) as a result of an increased stocking rate or lower pre-grazing herbage mass. Rotational grazing does not increase emissions intensity unless animal intake is restricted, compromising production. Decreasing forage maturity and the presence of tannin-containing legumes can decrease CH4 emissions; however, more research is required under grazing conditions to further quantify this. Non-tanniferous legumes mostly did not modify CH4 emissions. Additionally, nitrogen fertilization and silvopastoral systems have had no effects on CH4 emissions. Conversely, concentrate and lipid supplementation of grazing diets have improved animal performance and reduced CH4 intensity. Nitrates supplementation has not shown a consistent effect on CH4 production from grazing ruminants. Supplementation can be problematic in extensive systems where infrequent animal management and low profitability restricts its implementation [11,25]. Other additives such as tannins, 3-nitrooxypropanol, or red algae have shown promising results on CH4 reduction under confined conditions [101,102], but their effects on grazing systems are as yet uncertain. Finally, long-term studies and integrative evaluation through life cycle assessment analysis are needed to generate technologies that promote greater biological efficiency and farm profitability while reducing the detrimental effects on the environment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.V., N.D., E.U. and C.M.; data curation, J.V.; writing—review and editing, J.V., N.D., E.U. and C.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

J.V. was funded with an Animal Science department Ph.D. scholarship from the University of Florida and supported by the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases (GRA) through their CLIFF-GRADS program and the Agencia Nacional de Investigación y Desarrollo (ANID)/FONDECYT/REGULAR/FOLIO 1191476.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this paper are available on request from corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the critical review of the manuscript and editorial comments provided by Tessa Schulmeister.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Dubeux, J.C.B.; Sollenberger, L.E.; Mathews, B.W.; Scholberg, J.M.; Santos, H.Q. Nutrient cycling in warm-climate grasslands. Crop Sci. 2007, 47, 915–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Knapp, J.R.; Laur, G.L.; Vadas, P.A.; Weiss, W.P.; Tricarico, J.M. Enteric methane in dairy cattle production: Quantifying the opportunities and impact of reducing emissions. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 3231–3261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Godde, C.M.; Garnett, T.; Thornton, P.K.; Ash, A.J.; Herrero, M. Grazing systems expansion and intensification: Drivers, dynamics, and trade-offs. Glob. Food Secur. 2018, 16, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Livestock and the Environment. Meeting the Challenge; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1999; Available online: http://www.fao.org/docrep/x5304e/x5304e00.htm (accessed on 15 November 2021).
  5. Weindl, I.; Bodirsky, B.J.; Rolinski, S.; Biewald, A.; Lotze, H.; Müller, C.; Dietrich, J.P.; Humpenöder, F.; Stevanović, M.; Schaphoff, S.; et al. Livestock production and the water challenge of food supply: Implications of food agricultural management and dietary choices. Global Environ. Chang. 2017, 47, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ramankutty, N.; Mehrabi, Z.; Waha, K.; Jarvis, L.; Kremer, C.; Herrero, M.; Rieseberg, L.H. Trends in global agricultural land use: Implications for environmental health and food security. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2018, 69, 789–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Gerber, P.L.; Steinfeld, H.; Henderson, B.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C.; Dijkman, J.; Falcucci, A.; Tempio, G. Tackling Climate Change through Livestock—A Global Assessment of Emissions and Migration Opportunities; Food and Agricultural Organizations of the United Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2013. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/i3437e/i3437e00.htm (accessed on 15 November 2021).
  8. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM); FAO: Rome, Italy, 2021; Available online: https://www.fao.org/gleam/en (accessed on 10 November 2021).
  9. Leng, R.A. Quantitative ruminant nutrition—A green science. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 1993, 44, 363–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Guyader, J.; Janzen, H.H.; Kroebel, R.; Beauchemin, K.A. Forage use to improve environmental sustainability of ruminant production. J. Anim. Sci. 2016, 94, 3147–3158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Hristov, A.N.; Oh, J.; Firkins, J.L.; Dijkstra, J.; Kebreab, E.; Waghorn, G.; Makkar, H.P.S.; Adesogan, A.T.; Yang, W.; Lee, C.; et al. Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide from animal operations: I. A review of enteric methane mitigation options. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91, 5045–5069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Johnson, K.A.; Johnson, D.E. Methane emissions from cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 1995, 73, 2483–2492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Beauchemin, K.A.; Kreuzer, M.; O’Mara, F.; McAllister, T.A. Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: A review. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2008, 48, 21–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Eckard, R.J.; Grainger, C.; de Klein, C.A.M. Options for the abatement of methane and nitrous oxide from ruminant production: A review. Liv. Sci. 2010, 130, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hristov, A.N.; Ott, T.; Tricarico, J.M.; Rotz, A.; Waghorn, G.; Adesonga, A.T.; Dijkstra, J.; Montes, F.; Oh, J.; Kebreab, E.; et al. Mitigation of methane and nitrous oxide from animal operations: III. A review of animal management mitigation options. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91, 5095–5113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Yañez-Ruiz, D.R.; Bannink, A.; Dijkstra, J.; Kebreab, E.; Morgavi, D.; O’kiely, P.; Reynolds, C.K.; Schwarm, K.J.; Yu, Z.; Hristov, A.N. Design, implementation and interpretation of in vitro batch culture experiments to assess enteric methane mitigation in ruminants—A review. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 216, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Hristov, A.N.; Kebreab, E.; Niu, M.; Oh, J.; Bannink, A.; Bayat, A.R.; Boland, T.M.; Brito, A.F.; Casper, D.P.; Crompton, L.A.; et al. Uncertainties in enteric methane inventories, measurement techniques, and prediction models. J. Dairy Sci. 2018, 101, 6655–6674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hammond, K.; Crompton, L.; Bannink, A.; Dijkstra, J.; Yáñez-Ruiz, D.; O’Kiely, P.; Kebreab, E.; Eugène, M.A.; Yu, Z.; Shingfield, K.J.; et al. Review of current in vivo measurement techniques for quantifying enteric methane emissions from ruminants. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2016, 219, 13–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. De La Torre, S.; Royo, L.; Martinez, A.; Chocarro, C.; Vicente, F. The mode of grass supply to dairy cows impacts on fatty acid and antioxidant profile on milk. Foods 2020, 9, 1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Llonch, P.; Troy, S.; Duthie, C.; Somarriba, M.; Rooke, J.; Haskell, M.; Roehe, R.; Turner, S. Changes in feed intake during isolation stress in respiration chambers may impact methane emissions assessment. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2018, 58, 1011–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Beck, M.; Gregorini, P. Animal design through functional dietary diversity for production landscapes. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 546581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Palacio, S.; Bergeron, R.; Lachance, S.; Vasseur, E. The effects of providing portable shade at pasture on dairy cow behavior and physiology. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 6085–6093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Sollenberger, L.E.; Burns, J.C. Canopy Characteristics, Ingestive Behavior and Herbage Intake in Cultivated Tropical Grasslands. In Proceedings of the Grasslands International Congress, Sao Paulo, Brazil, 11–21 February 2001; Available online: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4128&context=igc (accessed on 15 November 2021).
  24. Biswas, A.; Jonker, A. Circadian variation in methane emissions by cattle and correlation with level and composition of ryegrass-based pasture eaten. N. Z. J. Anim. Sci. Prod. 2019, 79, 61–64. [Google Scholar]
  25. Beauchemin, K.A.; Ungerfeld, E.M.; Eckard, R.J.; Wang, M. Review: Fifty years of research on rumen methanogenesis: Lessons learned and future challenges for mitigation. Animal 2020, 14, s2–s16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Pacheco, D.; Waghorn, G.; Janssen, P.H. Decreasing methane emissions from ruminants grazing forages: A fit with productive and financial realities? Anim. Prod. Sci. 2014, 54, 1141–1154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Dorich, C.D.; Varner, R.K.; Pereira, A.B.D.; Martineau, R.; Soder, K.J.; Brito, A.F. Use of a portable, automated, open-circuit gas quantification system and the sulphur hexafluoride tracer technique for measuring enteric methane emissions in Holstein cow fed ad libitum or restricted. J. Dairy Sci. 2015, 98, 2676–2681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Sollenberger, L.E.; Newman, Y.C.; Macoon, B. Pasture Design and Grazing Management. In Forages: The Science of Grasslands Agriculture, 7th ed.; Moore, K., Collins, M., Nelson, C.J., Redfearn, D.D., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: Sussex, UK, 2020; Chapter 44; pp. 803–814. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hernández, A.; Sollenberger, L.E.; McDonald, D.C.; Ruegsegger, G.J.; Kalmbacher, R.S.; Mislevy, P. Nitrogen fertilization and stocking rate affect stargrass pasture and cattle performance. Crop. Sci. 2004, 44, 1348–1354. [Google Scholar]
  30. Pinares, C.S.; D’Hour, P.; Jounary, J.P.; Martin, C. Effect of stocking rate on methane and carbon dioxide emissions from grazing cattle. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2007, 121, 30–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Savian, J.V.; Neto, A.B.; David, D.B.; Bremm, C.; Schons, R.M.T.; Moraes, T.C.; Amaral, G.; Gere, J.; McManus, C.; Bayer, C.; et al. Grazing intensity and stocking methods on animal production and methane emissions by grazing sheep: Implications for integrated crop-livestock system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 190, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Souza, W.; Albuquerque, P.A.; Barro, R.S.; Kunrath, T.R.; Almeida, G.M.; Moraes, T.C.; Bayer, C.; Carvalho, P.C. Mitigation of enteric methane emissions through pasture management in integrated crop-livestock systems: Trade-offs between animal performance and environmental impacts. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 213, 968–975. [Google Scholar]
  33. Chiavegato, M.B.; Rowntree, J.E.; Carmichael, D.; Powers, W.J. Enteric methane from lactating beef cows managed with high and low input grazing systems. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 93, 1365–1375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. McCaughey, W.P.; Wittenberg, K.; Corrigan, D. Methane production by steers on pastures. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 1997, 77, 519–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Waghorn, G.C.; Jonker, A.; Macdonal, K.A. Measuring methane from grazing dairy cows using Greenfeed. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2016, 56, 252–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Boland, T.M.; Quinlan, C.; Pierce, K.M.; Lynch, M.B.; Kenny, D.A.; Kelly, A.K.; Purcell, P.J. The effect of pasture pregrazing herbage mass on methane emissions, ruminal fermentation, and average daily gain of grazing beef heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 91, 3867–3874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Koscheck, J.F.W.; Romanzini, E.P.; Barbero, R.P.; Delevatti, L.M.; Ferrari, A.C.; Mulliniks, J.T.; Mousquer, C.J.; Berchielli, T.T.; Reis, R.A. How do animal performance and methane emissions vary with forage management intensification and supplementation? Anim. Prod. Sci. 2020, 60, 1201–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Muñoz, C.; Letelier, P.A.; Ungerfeld, E.M.; Morales, J.M.; Hube, S.; Pérez-Priento, L.A. Effect of pregrazing herbage mass in late spring on enteric methane emissions, dry matter intake, and milk production of dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2016, 99, 7945–7955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. O’Neill, B.F.; Deighton, M.H.; O’Loughlin, B.M.; Galvin, N.; O’Donovan, M.; Lewis, E. The effects of supplementing grazing dairy cows with partial mixed ration on enteric methane emissions and milk production during mid to late lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 2012, 95, 6582–6590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Savian, J.V.; Schons, R.M.T.; Marchi, D.E.; Freitas, T.S.; Silva, G.F.; Mezzalira, J.C.; Berndt, A.; Bayer, C.; Carvalho, P.C. Rotatinuous stocking: A grazing management innovation that has high potential to mitigate methane emissions by sheep. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 213, 968–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wims, C.M.; Deighton, M.H.; Lewis, E.; O’Loughlin, B.; Delaby, L.; Boland, T.M.; O’Donovan, M. Effect of pregrazing herbage mass on methane production, dry matter intake, and milk production of grazing dairy cows during the mid-season period. J. Dairy Sci. 2010, 93, 4976–4985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Boadi, D.A.; Wittenberg, K.M.; McCaughey, W. Effect of grain supplementation of methane production of grazing steers using the sulphur (SF6) tracer gas technique. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2002, 82, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Pinares, C.S.; Baumont, R.; Martin, C. Methane emissions by Charolais cows grazing a monospecific pasture of timothy at four stages of maturity. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2003, 82, 151–157. [Google Scholar]
  44. DeRamus, A.; Clement, T.C.; Giampola, D.D.; Dickison, P.C. Methane emissions of beef cattle on forage: Efficiency of grazing management systems. J. Environ. Qual. 2003, 32, 269–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Amaral, G.A.; David, D.B.; Gere, J.I.; Savian, J.V.; Kohmann, M.M.; Nadin, L.B.; Sánchez, F.; Bayer, C.; Carvalho, P.C. Methane emissions from sheep grazing pearl millet (Pennisetum americanum (L.) Leek) swards fertilized with increasing nitrogen levels. Small Rumin. Res. 2016, 141, 118–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Berça, A.S.; Cardoso, A.D.S.; Longhini, V.Z.; Tedeschi, L.O.; Boddey, R.M.; Berndt, A.; Reis, R.A.; Ruggieri, A.C. Methane production and nitrogen balance of dairy heifers grazing palisade grass cv. Marandu alone or with forage peanut. J. Anim. Sci. 2019, 97, 4625–4634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Pontes, L.S.; Barro, R.S.; Savia, J.; Berndt, A.; Moletta, J.L.; Silva, V.P.; da Silva, V.; Bayer, C.; Carvalho, P.C. Performance and methane emissions by beef heifer grazing in temperate pastures and in integrated crop-livestock systems: The effect of shade and nitrogen fertilization. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2018, 253, 90–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Andrade, E.A.; Ribeiro, H.M.N.; Liz, D.M.; Almeida, J.G.R.; Miguel, M.F.; Raupp, G.T.; Ramos, F.R.; Almeida, E.X. Herbage intake, methane emissions and animal performance of steers grazing dwarf elephant grass with or without access to Arachis pintoi pastures. Trop. Grassl. 2014, 2, 4–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Chaves, A.V.; Thompson, L.C.; Iwaasa, A.D.; Scott, S.L.; Olson, M.E.; Benchaar, C.; Veira, D.M.; McAllister, T.A. Effect of pasture type (alfalfa vs grass) on methane and carbon dioxide production by yearling beef heifers. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 2006, 79, 221–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Dini, Y.; Gere, J.; Briano, C.; Manetti, M.; Juliarena, P.; Picasso, V.; Gratton, R.; Astigarraga, L. Methane emissions and milk production of dairy cows under grazing pastures rich in legumes or rich in grasses in Uruguay. Animals 2012, 2, 288–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Enriquez, D.; Gilliland, T.; Deighton, M.H.; O’Donovan, M.; Hennessy, D. Milk production and enteric methane emissions by dairy cows grazing fertilized perennial ryegrass pasture with or without inclusion of white clover. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 1400–1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. McCaughey, W.P.; Wittenberg, K.; Corrigan, D. Impact of pasture type on methane production by lactating beef cows. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 1999, 79, 221–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wilson, R.L.; Bionaz, M.; MacAdam, J.W.; Beauchemin, K.A.; Naumann, H.D.; Ates, S. Milk production, nitrogen utilization, and methane emissions of dairy cows grazing grass, forb, and legume-based pastures. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 98, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Andrade, E.A.; Almeida, E.X.; Raupp, G.T.; Miguel, M.F.; de Liz, D.M.; Carvalho, P.C.F.; Bayer, C.; Ribeiro, H.M.N. Herbage intake, methane emissions and animal performance of steers grazing dwarf elephant grass v. dwarf elephant grass and peanut pastures. Animal 2016, 10, 1684–1688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Woodward, S.L.; Waghorn, G.C.; Laboyrie, P.G. Condensed tannins in birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus) reduce methane emissions from dairy cows. N. Z. Soc. Anim. Sci. Prod. 2004, 64, 160–164. [Google Scholar]
  56. Frota, M.N.L.; Carneiro, M.S.S.; Pereira, E.S.; Berndt, A.; Frighetto, R.T.S.; Sakamoto, L.S.; Moreira, M.A.; Alves, J.A.; Côrtes, G.M. Enteric methane in grazing beef cattle under full sun, and in a silvopastoral system in the Amazon. Pesq. Agropec. Bras. 2017, 52, 1099–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Pontes, L.S.; Barro, R.S.; Camargo, E.F.; Silva, V.P.; Cezimbra, I.M.; Berndt, A.; Bayer, C.; Carvalho, P.C. Methane emissions from ruminants in integrated crop-livestock systems. Trop. Grassl. 2014, 2, 124–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Ramirez, C.A.; Barry, T.N.; Marriner, A.; Lopez, N.; McWilliam, A.L.; Lassey, K.R.; Clark, H. Effect of grazing willow fodder blocks upon methane production and blood composition in young sheep. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2010, 155, 33–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sollenberger, L.E.; Vanzant, E. Interrelationship among forage nutritive value and quantity and individual animal performance. Crop Sci. 2011, 51, 420–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pinares, C.S.; Ulyatt, M.J.; Lassey, K.R.; Barry, T.N.; Holmes, C.W. Rumen function and digestion parameters associated with differences between sheep in methane emissions fed chaffed Lucerne hay. J. Agric. Sci. 2003, 140, 205–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Guerrero, J.N.; Conrad, B.E.; Holt, E.C.; Wu, H. Prediction of animal performance on Bermudagrass pasture from available forage. Agron. J. 1984, 76, 577–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Wilson, J.R.; Akin, D.E.; McLeod, M.N.; Minson, D.J. Particle size reduction of the leaves of a tropical and temperate grass by cattle: II, Relation of anatomical structure to the process of leaf breakdown through chewing and digestion. Grass Forage Sci. 1989, 44, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Moe, P.W.; Tyrrell, H.F. Methane production in dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 1979, 62, 1583–1586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Sollenberger, L.E.; Newman, Y.C. Grazing Management. In Forages: The Science of Grassland Agriculture; Barnes, R.F., Ed.; Blackwell Publishing: Ames, IA, USA, 2007; Chapter 42; pp. 651–659. [Google Scholar]
  65. Chapman, D.F. Using ecophysiology to improve farm efficiency: Application in temperate dairy grazing systems. Agriculture 2016, 6, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Sierra, A.; Moreno, Y.; Mancipe, E.; Avellaneda, Y.; Vargas, J. Efecto de la fertilización nitrogenada y fosfatada de raigrases perennes y tréboles rojos. Agronom. Mesoam. 2019, 30, 841–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Cooke, R.F.; Caigle, C.L.; Moriel, P.; Smith, S.B.; Tedeschi, L.O.; Vendramini, J.M.B. Cattle adapted to tropical and subtropical environments: Social, nutritional, and carcass quality considerations. J. Anim. Sci. 2020, 98, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Coleman, S.; Moor, J.E.; Wilson, J.R. Quality and Utilization. In Warm-Season (C4) Grasses; Moser, L.E., Burson, B.L., Sollenberger, L.E., Eds.; American Society of Agronomy, Inc.: Madison, WN, USA; Crop Science Society of America, Inc.: Madison, WN, USA; Social Science Society of America, Inc.: Madison, WN, USA, 2004; p. 1171. [Google Scholar]
  69. Lee, J.M.; Woodward, S.L.; Waghorn, G.C.; Clark, D.A. Methane emissions by dairy cows fed increasing proportions of white clover (Trifolium repens) in pasture. N. Z. Grassl. Assoc. 2004, 66, 151–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Aboagye, I.A.; Beauchemin, K.A. Potential of molecular weight and structure of tannins to reduce methane emissions from ruminants: A review. Animals 2019, 9, 856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  71. Waghorn, G. Beneficial and detrimental effects of dietary condensed tannins for sustainable sheep and goat production—Progress and challenges. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2008, 147, 116–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Tavendale, M.H.; Meagher, L.P.; Pacheco, D.; Walker, N.; Attwood, G.T.; Sivakumaran, S. Methane production from in vitro rumen incubations with Lotus pedunculatus and Medicago sativa, and effects of extractable condensed tannin fractions on methanogenesis. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2005, 123–124, 403–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Dubeux, J.C.B.; Muir, J.P.; Apolinário, V.X.O.; Mair, P.K.R.; Lira, M.A.; Sollenberger, L.E. Tree legumes: An underexploited resource in warm-climate silvopastures. Brazil. J. Anim. Sci. 2017, 46, 689–703. [Google Scholar]
  74. Jose, S.; Dollinger, J. Silvopasture: A sustainable livestock production system. Agroforest. Syst. 2019, 93, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Gommers, C.M.M.; Visses, E.J.W.; St Onge, K.R.; Voesenek, L.A.C.J.; Pierik, R. Shade tolerance: When growing tall is not an option. Trends Plant Sci. 2013, 18, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Patra, A.K.; Saxena, J. A new perspective on the use of plant secondary metabolites to inhibit methanogenesis in the rumen. Phytochemistry 2010, 71, 1198–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Garg, M.R.; Sherasia, P.L.; Bhanderi, B.M.; Phondba, B.T.; Shelke, S.K.; Makkar, H.P.S. Effects of feeding nutritionally balanced rations on animal productivity, feed conversion efficiency, feed nitrogen use efficiency, rumen microbial protein supply, parasitic load, immunity and enteric methane emissions of milking animals under field conditions. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2013, 179, 24–35. [Google Scholar]
  78. Moss, A.R.; Jouany, J.P.; Newbold, J. Methane production by ruminant: Its contribution to global warming. Ann. Zootech. 2000, 49, 231–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Janssen, P.H. Influence of hydrogen on rumen methane formation and fermentation balances through microbial growth kinetics and fermentation thermodynamics. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2010, 160, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ungerfeld, E.M. Limits to dihydrogen incorporation into electron sinks alternative to methanogenesis in ruminal fermentation. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  81. Van Nevel, C.J.; Demeyer, D.I. Control of rumen methanogenesis. Environ. Monit. Assess. 1996, 42, 73–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Lovett, D.K.; Stack, L.J.; Lovell, S.; Callan, J.; Flynn, B.; Hawkins, M.; O’Mara, F.P. Manipulating enteric methane emissions and animal performance of late-lactation dairy cows through concentrate supplementation at pasture. J. Dairy Sci. 2005, 88, 2836–2842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Muñoz, C.; Hube, S.; Morales, J.M.; Yan, T.; Ungerfeld, E. Effects of concentrate supplementation on enteric methane emissions and milk production of grazing dairy cows. Liv. Sci. 2015, 175, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Muñoz, C.; Herrera, D.; Hube, S.; Morales, J.; Ungerfeld, E.M. Effect of dietary concentrate supplementation on enteric methane emissions and performance of lactating dairy cows. Chil. J. Agric. Res. 2018, 78, 429–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Moscoso, J.E.; Franco, F.; San Martín, F.; Olazábal, J.; Chino, L.; Pinares, C. Producción de metano en vacunos al pastoreo suplementados con ensilado, concentrado y taninos en el altiplano peruano en época seca. Rev. Investig. Vet. Perú 2017, 28, 822–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Jiao, H.O.; Dale, A.J.; Carson, A.F.; Murray, S.; Gordon, A.W.; Ferris, C.P. Effect of concentrate feed level on methane emissions from grazing dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci. 2014, 97, 7043–7053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Van Wyngaard, J.D.V.; Meeske, R.; Erasmus, L.J. Effect of concentrate feeding level on methane emissions, production performance and rumen fermentation of Jersey cows grazing ryegrass pasture during spring. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2018, 241, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Neto, A.J.; Messana, J.D.; Ribeiro, A.F.; Vito, E.S.; Rossi, L.G.; Berchielli, T.T. Effect of starch-based supplementation level with oil on intake, performance, and methane emissions of growing Nellore bulls on pasture. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 93, 2275–2284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Neto, A.J.; Messana, J.D.; Rossi, L.G.; Carvalho, I.P.C.; Berchielli, T.T. Methane emissions from Nellore bulls on pasture-fed two levels of starch-based supplement with or without a source of oil. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2019, 59, 654–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Carvalho, I.P.C.; Fiorentini, G.; Berndt, A.; Castagnino, P.S.; Messana, J.D.; Frighetto, R.T.S.; Reis, R.; Berchielli, T.T. Performance and methane emissions of Nellore steers grazing tropical pasture supplemented with lipid sources. R. Bras. Zootec. 2016, 45, 760–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Pinares, C.S.; Franco, F.E.; Molano, G.; Kjestrup, H.; Sandoval, E.; MacLean, S.; Battistotti, M.; Koolaard, J.; Laubach, J. Feed intake and methane emissions from cattle grazing pasture sprayed with canola oil. Liv. Sci. 2016, 184, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Silva, B.C.; Lopes, F.C.F.; Pereira, L.G.R.; Tomich, T.R.; Morenz, M.J.F.; Martins, C.E.; Gomide, C.A.M.; Paciullo, D.S.C.; Mauricio, R.M.; Chaves, A.V. Effect of sunflower oil supplementation on methane emissions of dairy cows grazing Urochloa brizantha cv. marandu. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2017, 57, 1431–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Storlien, T.M.; Prestløkken, E.; Beauchemin, K.A.; McAllister, T.A.; Iwaasa, A.; Harstad, O.M. Supplementation with crushed rapeseed causes reduction of methane emissions from lactating dairy cows on pasture. Anim. Prod. Sci. 2017, 57, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Granja, Y.T.; Fernandes, R.M.; Araujo, R.C.; Kishi, L.T.; Berchielli, T.T.; Resende, F.D.; Berndt, A.; Siqueira, G. Long-term encapsulated nitrate supplementation modulates rumen microbial diversity and rumen fermentation to reduce methane emissions in grazing steers. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Van Wyngaard, J.D.V.; Meeske, R.; Erasmus, L.J. Effect of dietary nitrate on enteric methane emissions, production performance and rumen fermentation of dairy cows grazing Kikuyu-dominant pasture during summer. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2018, 244, 76–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Van Wyngaard, J.D.V.; Meeske, R.; Erasmus, L.J. Effect of dietary nitrate on enteric methane emissions, production performance and rumen fermentation of dairy cows grazing ryegrass pasture during spring. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2019, 252, 64–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Erickson, P.S.; Murphy, M.W.; Clark, J.H. Supplementation of dairy cow diet with calcium salts of long-chain fatty acids and nicotinic acid in early lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 1992, 75, 1078–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Grainger, C.; Beauchemin, K.A. Can enteric methane emissions from ruminants be lowered without lowering their production? Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 2011, 166–167, 308–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Machmüller, A. Medium-chain fatty acids and their potential to reduce methanogenesis in domestic ruminants. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 112, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Zeitz, J.O.; Bucher, S.; Zhou, X.; Meile, L.; Kreuzer, M.; Soliva, C.R. Inhibitory effect of saturated fatty acids on methane production by methanogenic Archaea. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 2013, 22, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Kim, H.; Lee, H.G.; Baek, Y.C.; Lee, S.; Seo, J. The effects of dietary supplementation with 3-nitrooxypropanol on enteric methane emissions, rumen fermentation, and production performance in ruminants: A meta-analysis. J. Anim. Sci. Technol. 2020, 62, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  102. Kinley, R.D.; Martinez, G.; Matthews, M.K.; de Nys, R.; Magnusson, M.; Tomkins, N. Mitigating the carbon footprint and improving productivity of ruminant livestock agriculture using a red seaweed. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 259, 120836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 12 01132 g001 550
Figure 1. Publishing decade of retrieved peer-review documents of enteric methane emissions from ruminants.
Figure 1. Publishing decade of retrieved peer-review documents of enteric methane emissions from ruminants.
Animals 12 01132 g001
Animals 12 01132 g002 550
Figure 2. Distribution (%) of retrieved peer-review documents into Non-experimental, In vitro, Confined, and Grazing categories of methane emissions from ruminants.
Figure 2. Distribution (%) of retrieved peer-review documents into Non-experimental, In vitro, Confined, and Grazing categories of methane emissions from ruminants.
Animals 12 01132 g002
Animals 12 01132 g003 550
Figure 3. Distribution (%) of publications from the grazing category classified by continent, production system, forage type, and ruminant species.
Figure 3. Distribution (%) of publications from the grazing category classified by continent, production system, forage type, and ruminant species.
Animals 12 01132 g003
Table
Table 1. Number of experiments that reported either increased, decreased, or not modified CH4 emissions when implementing different grazing management practices.
Table 1. Number of experiments that reported either increased, decreased, or not modified CH4 emissions when implementing different grazing management practices.
Grazing or Pasture ManagementCH4 g/dCH4 g/kg DM or OMCH4 g/kg ProductCH4 %GEI 1Source
EffectNE 2EffectNE 2EffectNE 2EffectNE 2
Increasing Stocking RateIncrease0Increase0Increase0Increase0[30,31,32,33,34,35]
No effect5No effect4No effect3No effect6
Decrease5Decrease3Decrease0Decrease1
Decreasing pre-grazing herbage massIncrease2Increase1Increase1Increase1[36,37,38,39,40,41]
No effect4No effect3No effect2No effect2
Decrease2Decrease3Decrease5Decrease3
Decreased forage maturityIncrease0Increase =0NR 3NR 3Increase0[42,43]
No effect1No effect1No effect0
Decrease1Decrease1Decrease2
Rotational systemsIncrease0Increase0Increase2Increase0[31,34,44]
No effect5No effect1No effect1No effect2
Decrease2Decrease1Decrease0Decrease1
N fertilizationIncrease0Increase0Increase0Increase0[45,46,47]
No effect3No effect1No effect2No effect1
Decrease1Decrease0Decrease0Decrease0
Inclusion of non-tannin-containing legumes into the pasturesIncrease1Increase1Increase0Increase1[46,48,49,50,51,52,53]
No effect4No effect4No effect4No effect2
Decrease1Decrease1Decrease0Decrease1
Inclusion of tannin-containing legumes into the pasturesIncrease1Increase0Increase0Increase0[54,55]
No effect1No effect1No effect1No effect0
Decrease0Decrease1Decrease1Decrease1
Silvopastoral systemsIncrease0Increase0Increase0Increase0[47,56,57,58]
No effect6No effect2No effect2No effect2
Decrease0Decrease0Decrease0Decrease0
1. GEI = Gross energy intake; 2. NE = Number of experiments; 3. NR = Not reported.
Table
Table 2. Number of experiments that reported either increased, decreased, or not modified CH4 emissions when supplementing concentrates or nitrates to ruminants under grazing conditions.
Table 2. Number of experiments that reported either increased, decreased, or not modified CH4 emissions when supplementing concentrates or nitrates to ruminants under grazing conditions.
Supplementation StrategyCH4 g/dCH4 g/kg DM or OMCH4 g/kg ProductCH4 %GEI 1Source
EffectNE 2EffectNE 2EffectNE 2EffectNE 2
Concentrate inclusionIncrease5Increase0Increase0Increase0[37,42,44,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89]
Equal8Equal9Equal7Equal8
Decrease2Decrease3Decrease2Decrease3
Lipid supplementationIncrease0Increase0Increase0Increase0[90,91,92,93]
Equal4Equal3Equal2Equal3
Decrease5Decrease4Decrease3Decrease2
Nitrate supplementationIncrease0Increase0Increase0Increase0[94,95,96]
Equal3Equal3Equal2Equal2
Decrease0Decrease0Decrease0Decrease0
1. GEI = Gross energy intake; 2. NE = Number of experiments.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vargas, J.; Ungerfeld, E.; Muñoz, C.; DiLorenzo, N. Feeding Strategies to Mitigate Enteric Methane Emission from Ruminants in Grassland Systems. Animals 2022, 12, 1132. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12091132

AMA Style

Vargas J, Ungerfeld E, Muñoz C, DiLorenzo N. Feeding Strategies to Mitigate Enteric Methane Emission from Ruminants in Grassland Systems. Animals. 2022; 12(9):1132. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12091132

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vargas, Juan, Emilio Ungerfeld, Camila Muñoz, and Nicolas DiLorenzo. 2022. "Feeding Strategies to Mitigate Enteric Methane Emission from Ruminants in Grassland Systems" Animals 12, no. 9: 1132. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12091132

APA Style

Vargas, J., Ungerfeld, E., Muñoz, C., & DiLorenzo, N. (2022). Feeding Strategies to Mitigate Enteric Methane Emission from Ruminants in Grassland Systems. Animals, 12(9), 1132. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12091132

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop